"Sanctuary cities" and federal laws

[Bone]

@Okrahoma

No court has ever decided against my interpretation either. I have few hopes that the Federal wimpy immigration-laws-enforcement authority would ever robustly prosecute that law, but until the court decides, I will stick to my obvious and common-sense stance that releasing the illegal alien onto the streets vs. turning him over to ICE as ICE requested facilitates his staying in the United States.

No court has ever decided that my city is required to furnish me 14 unicorns per month because my tomato garden grows spectacularly with unicorn tears either. The problem with using this reasoning is that it can be applied to any absurdity and it’s entirely unpersuasive as it shifts the burden of proof.

The evidence against your position though, is fairly robust. Given all the complaints, the only thing that the Trump Administration has tried to do is cut off funding, and even that was blocked. Given there are hundreds of requests made by ICE that are basically ignored, and the persons released, you’d think that there would be a single example of at least an attempt made to prosecute. Barring that, I’d say your position is without legal support.

[Skywatcher]

@Okrahoma

not answering the request violates that federal law

You keep saying that. I do not think it means what you think it means.

[El_Kabong]

@Okrahoma

Since not answering the request violates that federal law, yes, they were.

That’s only your opinion, unsupported by anything you’ve presented so far, and it still means that term “refused” is incorrect on your part.

Please feel free, however, to continue stating the same thing over and over until it magically becomes true.

[Okrahoma]

BTW, U.S. v. Cantu is very informative. Employer refused immigration agents’ request to enter the restaurant until a warrant was produced, then arranged the aliens’ leaving the restaurant as if they were customers (released them onto the streets without notifying the agents, so to say). Court found that his conduct “tended to facilitate the immigrants remaining in the U.S. illegally” and convicted him.

And, Bone, this is Fifth Circuit, relying on Second Circuit’s definition.

[Bone]

@Okrahoma

BTW, U.S. v. Cantu is very informative. Employer refused immigration agents’ request to enter the restaurant until a warrant was produced, then arranged the aliens’ leaving the restaurant as if they were customers (released them onto the streets without notifying the agents, so to say). Court found that his conduct “tended to facilitate the immigrants remaining in the U.S. illegally” and convicted him.

And, Bone, this is Fifth Circuit, relying on Second Circuit’s definition.

Yes, Cantu was 5th, Ye was 7th, and Ye cited Cantu and a 2nd circuit. Notice that none are in the 9th?

[running_coach]

@Okrahoma

BTW, U.S. v. Cantu is very informative. Employer refused immigration agents’ request to enter the restaurant until a warrant was produced, then arranged the aliens’ leaving the restaurant as if they were customers (released them onto the streets without notifying the agents, so to say). Court found that his conduct “tended to facilitate the immigrants remaining in the U.S. illegally” and convicted him.

And, Bone, this is Fifth Circuit, relying on Second Circuit’s definition.

Private citizen who hired illegal immigrants, not a law enforcement agency releasing a former prisoner.

Can you cite a case of a LEA (or it’s Dept. Head /Director/Chief, etc)being prosecuted?

[Skywatcher]

@Okrahoma

BTW, U.S. v. Cantu is very informative. Employer refused immigration agents’ request to enter the restaurant until a warrant was produced, then arranged the aliens’ leaving the restaurant as if they were customers (released them onto the streets without notifying the agents, so to say). Court found that his conduct “tended to facilitate the immigrants remaining in the U.S. illegally” and convicted him.

Now you’re trying to argue that López-Sánchez was an employee of the City of San Francisco? What else are you going to toss up to see if it sticks?

[Okrahoma]

@running_coach

Private citizen who hired illegal immigrants, not a law enforcement agency releasing a former prisoner.

Can you cite a case of a LEA (or it’s Dept. Head /Director/Chief, etc)being prosecuted?

@Skywatcher

Now you’re trying to argue that López-Sánchez was an employee of the City of San Francisco? What else are you going to toss up to see if it sticks?

The case was not based on them being employees, but on Cantu releasing them in the streets, refusing access to the aliens’ by the immigration agents. Which “tended to facilitate the immigrants remaining in the U.S. illegally”.

[CarnalK]

@Okrahoma

BTW, U.S. v. Cantu is very informative. Employer refused immigration agents’ request to enter the restaurant until a warrant was produced, then arranged the aliens’ leaving the restaurant as if they were customers (released them onto the streets without notifying the agents, so to say). Court found that his conduct “tended to facilitate the immigrants remaining in the U.S. illegally” and convicted him.

And, Bone, this is Fifth Circuit, relying on Second Circuit’s definition.

So you are seriously equating a restaurant sneaking out illegal employees with a police department releasing a prisoner who is not being charged with anything? After 8 pages, have you no sense of shame?

[Richard_Parker]

@Okrahoma

No. My position is that such behavior (that is, refusing ICE request to notify them when the illegal alien is released onto the streets) is against the law. The law that has not been prosecuted in this case (yet, I hope). Where is the contradiction?

The contradiction is in believing something can be both optional and illegal. It cannot be both. It is optional because the Constitution requires that. Because the Constitution requires that it be optional, it cannot be illegal. Ergo, even if your statutory interpretation of the harboring law were correct (and it is not), your argument that the law applies here would still be wrong because such an application would be unconstitutional.

[Skywatcher]

@Okrahoma

The case was not based on them being employees, but on Cantu releasing them in the streets, refusing access to the aliens’ by the immigration agents.

There would not have been any case if the aliens were not in the restaurant.

[Okrahoma]

@CarnalK

So you are seriously equating a restaurant sneaking out illegal employees with a police department releasing a prisoner who is not being charged with anything?

What were the “illegal employees” being charged with in Cantu?

[Skywatcher]

@CarnalK

So you are seriously equating a restaurant sneaking out illegal employees with a police department releasing a prisoner who is not being charged with anything?

Employees who were caught in the parking lot, by the way.

[Okrahoma]

@Richard_Parker

The contradiction is in believing something can be both optional and illegal. It cannot be both. It is optional because the Constitution requires that.

Cite that the Constitution “requires” that the SF officials’ acceding to the ICE request that they be notified would be “optional”.

[Skywatcher]

@Okrahoma

What were the “illegal employees” being charged with in Cantu?

At least one was charged as a co-conspirator.

[Okrahoma]

@Skywatcher

Employees who were caught in the parking lot, by the way.

Some. Some left without being caught.

[Okrahoma]

@Skywatcher

At least one was charged as a co-conspirator.

Ok maybe I didn’t make it clear - what were they being charged with at the time of the incident?

[running_coach]

@Okrahoma

Cite that the Constitution “requires” that the SF officials’ acceding to the ICE request that they be notified would be “optional”.

Powers given to the Federal Government as opposed to the powers given to the States.
Controlling immigration is strictly a Federal power. States cannot hold someone for violating immigration law on their own.

[CarnalK]

@Okrahoma

What were the “illegal employees” being charged with in Cantu?

Why do you ask?

[Okrahoma]

@running_coach

Powers given to the Federal Government as opposed to the powers given to the States.
Controlling immigration is strictly a Federal power. States cannot hold someone for violating immigration law on their own.

Calling ICE in response to ICE request to inform them that an illegal alien is going to be released is neither “controlling immigration” nor “holding someone for violating immigration law”.